[Id-event] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-secevent-subject-identifiers-16: (with COMMENT)

[Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-secevent-subject-identifiers-16: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-secevent-subject-identifiers/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work on this document.

Many thanks to Paul Kyzivat for his ART ART review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/3UoUPXy96ynW4msza41RfQqzsss/. I
haven't seen any answer to Paul's review, which I think gives input for
improvements and clarifications, so I would strongly encourage the authors to
evaluate and respond to Paul's comments. Regarding Paul's 1st comment, I think
that ship has sailed, so I would not insist on any change there.

Additionally, I was surprised to see the following statement in the expert
guidelines:

> In the case where a request is rejected, the Expert Reviewer must provide the
requesting party with a written statement expressing the reason for rejection,
and be prepared to cite any sources of information that went into that decision.

Although I understand wanting to know the reasoning behind a rejection, I would
not formulate this as a formal requirement on the experts.

Francesca